Re: sustainable swag

Mark wrote:

> On the other hand, some we
> would mostly welcome as
> consumers. The Fair Trade
> standard, for example, or
> the FSC (Forest Stewardship
> Council) stickers which
> purportedly assure us of the
> sustainable origin of wooden
> products. We don't need to
> read an essay but we can do
> if we wish to (a summary of
> the FSC standards is here:
>http://www.cpet.org.uk/evidence-of-compliance/category-a-evidence/approved-schemes/forest-stewardship-council-fsc)

(FWIW, I notice that the FSC sticker design (#3 from top) has changed 
from what is used on the Ibex Outdoor Clothing catalog:

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/IBEX_2010catalog.jpg

.)

As I say to Rob in a separate post, I think "free" standards are, in 
general, a good thing -- at their best, offering guidelines for the 
rest of us to think about, and perhaps even a model to adopt in our 
lives & businesses.

That said, I do wonder about their pacifying effect. There's a very 
real sense in which "the standard" works to close off dialogue and 
shut down thought. Just think of the words we associate with 
standards: compliance, conformance, etc.

In my ideal world, standards would instead be an *opening* to dialogue 
(which, of course, you can't have if they're not FREE to all ;-). Such 
dialogue is always part of a messy political process (here I'm 
thinking back to the boisterous C17 debates over location of the 
"prime meridian" ;-), but I think these are public discussions we have 
to have if we're to make real progress towards sustainability.

I believe we've reached a tipping point where we can't put this sort 
of thing on automatic pilot, and let the standards do the thinking for us.

E.g., I wonder how many of us follow up on the FSC symbol we notice 
approvingly on the back of the Ibex Outdoor Clothing catalog, in order 
to see what it really means, and how their FSC rating compares to 
others? Or do we just visually register the mark, and think to 
ourselves "oh great, they're a green company, so I can feel righteous 
about my acquisition of more stuff if I buy it from them"...?

I expect this is an inescapable dialectical struggle for humans.

We don't want to have to think about everything, all of the time.

We don't want to be confronted with difficult decisions to make every 
time we turn around.

We want those little visual markers telling us at a single glance that 
someone else has taken care of things for us.

This is certainly how I function, given half the chance. ;-)

Still, I think we can -- and probably should -- do things to update 
the genre for a postmodern/postindustrial age, so that "the standard" 
plays a more liminal role in public discussions of sustainability -- 
becoming more of an heuristic, less of an algorithm.


> But our best is often ambiguous
> in its effects. Using paper
> made from recycled fibres sounds
> good but, depending on the
> recycling process, its energy
> and chemical-impact costs, and
> its robustness as a product,
> may not always turn out to be
> a 'good thing'.

Agreed.

(Another good example of "greenwashing": clothing made from supposedly 
"sustainable" bamboo.)

In my own case of wanting to sustainably produce fine art prints & 
posters, I keep wondering about the trade-offs gained with longer life 
cycles. For instance, can we measure the impact on product 
sustainability of using archival-quality inks and high-end paper that 
will last a long time? Does this impact positively or negatively on 
"disposal" costs? (Leonard usefully distinguishes 5 stages in the life 
cycle of Stuff: Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption, and 
Disposal.)

What are the hidden environmental costs of printed ephemera? Of the 
economies of scale gained from printing more fliers or business cards 
than you need (and plenty of printers these days won't print anything 
less than quantities of 1000)? Of the waste similarly associated with 
shorter runs & paying extra to print just what you need (and have the 
print shop, instead of you, dispose of the extra)?

How long do vegetable (vs. petroleum-based) inks last on a Tshirt? or 
weather line-drying in the sun?

And can we take a Tee back for recycling? Touching up its artwork with 
non-toxic inks for a minimal charge, the way you can have your shoes 
re-soled? Can we print on a Tee over & over with non-toxic inks until 
it's worn threadbare and is ready to be re-born again as a useful rag?

Should we?

And as if all this weren't complicated enough, even "the standard" has 
a life cycle to worry about. It's not enough to learn its lessons 
once, and figure that's it.

Just when you think you've maybe figured out one piece of the puzzle 
and are ready to put everything on auto pilot, technologies and "best 
practices" change radically, interjecting new variables into a very 
delicate balance, and it's time to begin your study all over again!

Perhaps it's best for the human spirit if "the standard" withholds 
such uncomfortable truths about the never-ending process, affording us 
at least temporary peace of mind with its smart little stickers and 
body of verifiable rules & regulations....

I don't know. I myself would *really* like a little peace of mind, 
about this, and many other troubling issues as well. ;-)

But I'm not sure I can trust myself not to just collapse there, either.

Whereas with Annie Leonard's colophon, I keep on moving forward: 
questioning her choices ... wondering if/how they apply to me ... 
thinking, thinking, thinking....

This is a different (and I believe, probably better) response than 
what I have to a standard, where my primary concern becomes "how do I 
implement this"?

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]
___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________